This is good news. It doesn't mean we should not pursue alternative fuel options and gas prices are climbing over $3/gallon.

.....

We should pursue them when and where they make sense. There are portable energy options and there are non-mobile energy options. We should look at eliminating the use of mobile energy in non-mobile production facilities - why are we burning fossil fuels for electrical production when it could be used in cars, trucks, ships, and aircraft? Why not use nuclear energy for electrical production?

Well to some people,
- research just doesn't make sense.
- that to make practical a promising technology for energy capture and storage takes not days, months or years to develop but several decades and even centuries, doesn't make sense.
- planning for the future, doesn't make sense.

To those people, it just makes more sense to bury their heads in the sand, to stagnant. After-all, they'll be dead before it could be their problem.

To the practical people, it does make sense to pursue "them", NOW and HERE.

Capitalism? I think you mean good old Science is to thank. Geologists, Geophysicists, Petroleum Engineers. Too bad the majority of domestic oil has, is and always will be shipped overseas. Now that part you can thank capitalism for.

When I graduated high school in Ohio in May of 1999 gas was $0.93 a gallon. If gasoline prices simply followed inflation gas SHOULD cost $1.41 / gallon. As it stands gas prices are twice the rate of inflation. Again, you can thank Capitalism for that.

We should pursue them when and where they make sense. There are portable energy options and there are non-mobile energy options. We should look at eliminating the use of mobile energy in non-mobile production facilities - why are we burning fossil fuels for electrical production when it could be used in cars, trucks, ships, and aircraft? Why not use nuclear energy for electrical production?

Why? Because we drained the swamp of doctors, physicists, scientists, and engineers who are leaders in their fields, and filled it with fossil fuel lobbyists, campaign donors, and political hacks. That's why. Plus he promised coal miners.

The guy in charge of the Dept. of Energy - and our entire nuclear arsenal - has a 4 year degree in Animal Husbandry, LOL. Just go down the list.

Newer technology and innovations are fascinating and will continue to advance, perhaps not as quickly, but don't look for any rational discussion involving cleaner or renewable energies emanating from the WH for 2 to 6 more years.

Why? Because we drained the swamp of doctors, physicists, scientists, and engineers who are leaders in their fields, and filled it with fossil fuel lobbyists, campaign donors, and political hacks. That's why. Plus he promised coal miners.

The guy in charge of the Dept. of Energy - and our entire nuclear arsenal - has a 4 year degree in Animal Husbandry, LOL. Just go down the list.

Newer technology and innovations are fascinating and will continue to advance, perhaps not as quickly, but don't look for any rational discussion involving cleaner or renewable energies emanating from the WH for 2 to 6 more years.

We should pursue them when and where they make sense. There are portable energy options and there are non-mobile energy options. We should look at eliminating the use of mobile energy in non-mobile production facilities - why are we burning fossil fuels for electrical production when it could be used in cars, trucks, ships, and aircraft? Why not use nuclear energy for electrical production?

Ethanol cost more per BTU to produce than gasoline does. So putting more of it in gasoline will up the cost (ignoring government subsidies).

Prove it. Just how much money has been spent to defend our oil supply? There has been no American blood shed to protect our ethanol supply. You can't say that about oil. You can send your kids and grandkids over to that middle east hell hole, but don't ask me to send mine.

Prove it. Just how much money has been spent to defend our oil supply?

Less money than if we didn't defend it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerin'Hank

There has been no American blood shed to protect our ethanol supply. You can't say that about oil. .

There has no blood spilled over protection of our ethanol supply; there have been plenty of dead over an economic disaster, like the Great Depression, plenty of food, the problem was no one was able to afford it and prices for food crashed, bankrupting farmers which further exacerbated the economic downward spiral.
Some estimates of the Great Depression are 7 million died [10% of NYC for ex] in the US. Malnutrition being blamed, we used to have hospitals for specific diseases, for example who has heard of Pellagra, there were entire hospitals* dedicated to it.
The reason why the US is sensitive to economic threats is you pay one way or another.

*malnutrition being the cause: there were specific hospitals for diseases

There has no blood spilled over protection of our ethanol supply; there have been plenty of dead over an economic disaster, like the Great Depression, plenty of food, the problem was no one was able to afford it and prices for food crashed, bankrupting farmers which further exacerbated the economic downward spiral.
Some estimates of the Great Depression are 7 million died [10% of NYC for ex] in the US. Malnutrition being blamed, we used to have hospitals for specific diseases, for example who has heard of Pellagra, there were entire hospitals* dedicated to it.
The reason why the US is sensitive to economic threats is you pay one way or another.

*malnutrition being the cause: there were specific hospitals for diseases

So....you really think that people will starve because of ethanol and that it will cause an economic disaster? Wow.

You had better start boycotting food companies due to their price of food. Farm prices are at their lowest in 10 years and yet food costs are not going down. (with the exception of dairy products). There is not and will never be a food shortage because of ethanol. There will be however, be more American blood shed to defend our oil supply.